11 posts from May 2015

May 30, 2015

May 28, 2015

Today at Business Question I raised the issue of the need to honour the memory of the 453 UK soldiers who died in Afghanistan by having an inquiry into what was the cause of the nearly all their deaths - the decision in 2006 to invade Helmand. The rules of the House of Commons were changed after I had previously read out the names of the fallen in the Chamber three times.

These early-day motions honour the names of the 453 British soldiers who died in Afghanistan—most of them as a result of the decision to invade Helmand in 2006. Is it not crucial that we inquire into what happened in Iraq—we are still waiting for Chilcot—and what happened in Helmand before we contemplate engaging in new invasions as recommended by Lord Dannatt?

The thoughts of this House should be, and will always be, with the families of those who lost their lives in Afghanistan and of those before them who lost their lives in Iraq. They did a vital job for this country; we cherish their memories.

The hon. Gentleman will have many opportunities to raise those issues immediately. He makes a point specifically about the Chilcot report. It has been the view of this Government, and of the previous Government for some time, that we are keen to see that report at the earliest opportunity, but it is of course for Chilcot himself to decide when he is ready to publish, when all the issues have been resolved.

May 26, 2015

Unless the truth will do more harm than a lie. Possibly in wartime when the truth would help the enemy and put our soldiers lives at risk. Possibly in health pandemics to avoid panic. Possibly to reduce mourners' grief by glossing over deaths details.

In non-emgencies there is no excuse for lying. It is wrong and stupid. Like all MPs I have made mistakes but I have never lied. Mistakes should be corrected at first opportunies.

Avoiding telling a lie cost me five weeks of expulsion from parliament. I said in an oral question that 'Politicians lie : soldiers die.' The Speaker demanded to know if I was saying that Ministers had lied? To answer 'no' would have been a lie. Many ministers had lied telling soldiers they were risking their lives in Afghanistan to stop Taliban attacks on the UK. I told the truth that I did believe ministers were not so stupid to believe that the Taliban planned terrorist atttacks on the UK. Others planned them. But not the Taliban. I willingly accepted the inevitable punishment of expul;sion. I would do the same again.

A lie for the great majority of MPs is an extremely rare event. There is the virtually certainty of being found out and being punished. Every word we say in Parliament is open to scrutiny for ever. MPs have a s a prime duty to restore public faith in politics. Lying drags us deeper into the gutter.

Malcolm Bruce demeaned himself, his trade and parliament in his car-crash interview today. Alistair Carmichael is an aimiable competent minister. On Channel 4 news in early April he said the first he knew of Frenchgate was a call from an newspaper. That's was untrue. By any accurate definition it was a lie. He had authorised the leak. It was not in the public's interest to spread a fictitious account of the meeting. It was in the interests of influencing public opinion in favour of the LibDems, of Mr Carmichael as candidate and to smear the SNP. He did nothing to correct the untruthful impressions until the election was over and he had gain personal and party advantage from the untruth.

This is a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards and Mr Carmichael's constituents. He should go.

May 25, 2015

David Taylor's name was mentioned in a tweet today on possibly unfair newspaper criticism of MPs' expenses. There is no complaint against the exposure of the MPs expenses scandal. It was necessary and timely. Practices that invited corruption had long been tolerated. The Telegraph was justified in publication. But there were casualties. I interviewed the Telegraph's Ben Brogan before I wrote my biography of David Taylor and told him I thought his paper's criticism of David had contributed to his premature death. David was a healthy 63 year old sportsman, a teetotaller and a non-smoker. The Telegraph criticised him on the 14th December 2009. He dropped dead on the 26th of December 2009. The Telegraph decided to ignore the criticism in my book. Here is an obituary that I wrote at the time of his death.

David Taylor was a supremely resourceful backbencher, a polymath and a unique parliamentary craftsman.

In the three final days of David's parliamentary life before the Christmas recess he asked a remarkable ten oral questions and initiated a parliamentary debate. As always, his words were authoritive, penetrating and humourous.

He applied his nimble, well-furnished mind to deploy every weapon in the backbenchers’ armory. Ministers braced themselves for the inevitable David Taylor question. His formula for oral questions was a courteous introduction that flattered the answering minister, then a deadly adjectival triple fusillade, usually lubricated with humour and a final unanswerable coda.

'I exculpate the Minister, who is a very able man of great integrity, but what should be done about the lamentable failures of that ill-conceived, incoherent and incompetent organisation? Perhaps the guilty parties could be locked up for egregious negligence as a pilot group in one of the Minister’s fabled titan prisons—if there is one big enough.'

The House of Commons Library kindly measured for me the extent to which he mastered oral questions including the newly fangled topical ones. He tops all tables with a massive 84 topical questions and 121 other orals. Many were opportunistic, called because of his permanent presence in the Chamber. He scored highly in the value for money league table of MPs who work the hardest for the lowest unit cost.

His stylish audacious use of language was a delight. He extended the stale vocabulary of the Commons with adventurous English. Occasionally he overindulged his alliteration asking, “Is it forever the fate of football fans to be fleeced by flaky foreign financiers?'

His independent unique approach to parliamentary procedure has left its legacy. A ‘David Taylor vote’ is the only way of registering a positive abstention. When in doubt, David voted in both the No and the Aye lobbies. It’s hard to explain to constituents. But it’s good sense until Parliament comes up with a better idea.

He was never what Tony Wright called a ‘When?’ politician, seeking when he was going to get a job, or get promotion or a prized favour. David was a ‘Why?’ MP, asking why is that happening? Why can’t it be improved? Why are we repeating errors?

Ambition or ministerial office never captured his interest. He never sought self-aggrandisement or empty publicity. His satisfaction came from worthwhile reforms. He spoke with sensitivity and understanding on the care of the elderly and strains of family life. He inspired campaigns for improved residential care, for the smoking ban and humane treatment of laboratory animals. Yvette Cooper praised his contribution to improved cancer services.

He was first elected in 1997 as a fully-fledged expert in accountancy and computers. He flailed PFI as ‘prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequence.’ He excoriated the Rural Payments Agency for their ‘failure to properly specify, design and control a major public sector computer development’. He passionately denounced the parliamentary system that allows the ‘Executive to take liberties with democracy, generating an atavistic herd instinct that strangles independent thought and objectivity’. He devised a practical strategy for correcting the harm of the 10p tax debacle.

But he was loyal to the core values of the Labour Party. He described himself as a ‘typical working class’ and a ‘mushy peas rather than a guacamole socialist’ His never failing courtesy and lack of malice secured the affection of all colleagues. He served his constituency with maternal zeal. David’s iconic success and character makes him an admirable model for the new parliamentarians of 2010.

We will miss his friendship, modesty, his infectious laugh and his kindness. Parliament is bereaved.

During the election campaign, I put some postings on a 'NON-MP" temporary blog. For reasons of mainly archive retrieval I am copying them to this one. Some of the comments are now slightly dated but accurately reflect the mood at the time.

Fired-up. Enthused. Excited. Angry. Turned-on. Yes all that are more. This is freak election campaign 2015 and I am enjoying it more than any other.

There are genuine mysteries on how the Rubik’s Cube of a result in Newport West will turn out. It depends on where the UKIP votes will come from and where the deserting LibDems will go. Nobody knows.

For the past six months, Tory MPs have smugly been forecasting an economy-success fueled surge in Tory support to happen at Christmas…. in long campaign…. in short campaign….. sometime…. never. They have tried abusing Miliband, fictionalisng the financial crisis origins, stirring up English nationalism and now ‘Dollgate’. We are living in ‘The Thick of it” when the demoniac character of Sturgeon is proved by the exposure of her alleged Hitlerite act of cutting her doll’s hair.....it was some time ago too. Now they a holding an undeclared leadership battle. Not a bright idea 11 days before polling day. Those whom the Gods intend to destroy, they first make mad. Is Tory neurosis the first recorded case in the history of psychology of a Group Brain-Fade?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckmLnkzjIjI

The Newport West battle has been less soporific than usual. The Tory has woefully ignored his Government’s final act of removing local councils’ right to ban fracking or nuclear waste drilling and part of his cunning 'plan' is a call for more planning powers for local councils. With restraint I have gently mocked his ridiculous parliamentary-irrelevant ‘plan’ as ‘Something old, nothing new, mostly borrowed and sadly blue.’ He has exposed himself as a Tory Nerd in Waiting keen to obey all his party’s calls to plunge into avoidable wars-especially when based on emotional spasms. He would be just another addition to the Commons 'Give War a Chance Party'.

The South Wales Argus has treated us to pioneering intelligent coverage that captures the the passion of the Hustings at their best.

The Newport West LibDem has been absent from all the Hustings. He suffers from REDS-Repetitive Election Defeat Syndrome after spending £30,000 in his last failed candidature– more that any other candidate in Gwent. That;

'That's more that three times the sums spent by each of the two winning MPs in the ciry. UKIP has also failed to show and Plaid managed one only. Not that the Hustings were worthless. They were great.

A LibDem for another constituency elbowed his way unwisely into all of the Hustings here. He has an uncertain grasp of facts and reality. But he has ONE fan who writes a hilarious blog hagiography on him-anonymously of course. Anyone any clue who writes it? Is it a hoax? I recently sued him for a gross defamation of me on national television. I kindly did not press it to the courts stage where the costs would have escalated. He has not learned his lesson and has repeated the offence. The Hustings have given me the chance to confront him face-to-face with a dose of grown-up politics. As a heckler told him last Friday ‘If you can’t do good: then don’t do harm’. He has increased the problem he rails against with self-indulgent grandstanding. This is coarse vulgar world of student politics at its worst.

Green Pippa has been an eloquent adornment of the campaign making some good points. She has avoided the Greens La-la-land of no immigration control plus citizens wage of £80 a week, for all, That’s all those in work, out of work, seeking work and not-seeking work. Implemented that would have an interesting consequence on immigration. An increase in her vote from 1.1% in 2010 could have the perverse result of robbing Wales of its greenest MP. They did it before to Simon Thomas in 2005.

One more Hustings next Friday. Will the Scarlet Pimpernel absent candidates appear? Even as holograms or in ectoplasm would suffice.

04/14/2015

Tory Newport candidate Nick Webb has a plan. He is calling for neighbourhood planning powers, allowing residents to shape their own communities

He did not know that his sly Tory Government had already robbed Local Authorities of those powers.

The Guardian last week reported on a change in the law which will allow nuclear waste dumps and fracking drilling to be forced on local communities. The profoundly anti-democratic measure removes from local authorities their powers to control drilling and the dumping of toxic waste, including nuclear waste, in their locality. The legislation was rushed through in the dying days of the last Parliament by a thinly attended House of Commons.

Tory Zac Goldsmith is described in the Guardian piece as ‘one of the few government MPs who broke ranks to vote against the move.’ But this does not tell the full story.

A trickle of emails arrived from horrified anti-nuclear campaigners, urging me to do something. Duncan Hames LibDem MP called round concerned colleagues to organise resistance to the motion.

The Government did not expect the motion to be opposed. They expected it to be quietly passed by a disinterested Parliament in its final throes. But I, along with three other voices, objected to it. And so the motion was deferred until the following week.

The next day I raised the issue with William Hague at Business Questions.

Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): The Leader of the House will be remembered in Wales as one of the most agreeable alien governor-generals we have had, in a period when he had the great good fortune to meet the wonderful Welsh woman who was to become his wife. Can he add further lustre to his reputation today by looking at a profoundly anti-democratic measure that was blocked by several voices last night? It would remove from the local authorities their powers to control drilling and the dumping of toxic waste, including nuclear waste, in their country. Would it not be an affront to democracy if that measure passed through the House on a deferred decision by a thinly attended House? Should the measure not now be withdrawn, for consideration by the next Parliament?

Mr Hague: I am grateful for the nearest thing to a ringing endorsement from the hon. Gentleman. I have fond memories of being Welsh Secretary. The Prime Minister who appointed me to that role, Sir John Major, asked me to take Wales to my heart. When, a year later, I married my private secretary, he said, “I think you are taking this a little bit too literally now.” Of course I have been deeply fond of Wales ever since.

On the measure the hon. Gentleman refers to, we must follow the procedures with all matters before the House, including the large number of orders in the remaining few days of the Parliament, so I cannot offer him an additional debate, but he will be able, as ever, to use every possible procedure of this House—he is very skilled at that—to make his views known. I am sure he will continue to do so on that matter.

The measure came before the Commons again as a deferred division – what the Guardian describes as an ‘unusual paper ballot’ – on Wednesday 25 March. No debate takes place on a deferred division. MPs vote in ballot boxes either yes or no. Despite opposition from 33 MPs including myself, the vote passed. I managed to persuade one Tory MP to vote against. None of the other Tories appeared to know what it meant. They voted the way the whips told them to do.

As a result, nuclear waste storage sites will now be chosen by the Energy Secretary. Local authorities can object, but they cannot stop toxic waste being dumped in their areas. Had MPs been allowed a proper debate, the outcome could have been very different. Instead, an extremely anti-democratic measure was hidden away in one the final acts of this Parliament. Local democracy has been dealt a further blow. Communities are right to be angry with the Conservative party that tramples over the rights of local communities to defend themselves.

Yet Nick Webb boasts another leaflet that contains the same promise to boost local democracy. It’s not fair. Someone should have told him.

Plan for both the desolation of failure and the exuberance of success. Both will quicken the flow of creative juices. Your contribution to the result will be marginal because voters choose mainly on national perceptions of parties and their leaders. But prepare meticulously because results are often determined in the margins.

My six general elections victories in a previously Tory seat are mainly attributable to national moods helped by a bad perception of Thatcher and a favourable one of Tony Blair. The party in Newport West did the rest and determined the result of the 2010 election where the swing against Labour was below the UK or Welsh average. Either of those would have unseated me.

The 2015 omens are good. Traditionally we are champions of depression - imprisoned in the neurotic endemic pessimism that’s Labour’s incurable trait. But the facts disagree. The poll average for the past 24 months all promise overall victory for us. The LibDems are in a tailspin. Right wing voters have two Tory parties in which to divide their votes. Firm traditional Labour loyalty can be topped up with footloose voters who recognise the cavernous failure of the Tory ineptocracy. There is no new dawn of Tory popularity that an improved economy promised. Their horizon remains stubbornly mid-night black.

Vote magnetism

Politicians have not won back public trust after the hideous screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. Grow a shell back to protect from the inevitable sneers and insults. Build on the lingering goodwill of the loyal to establish your distinctive persona. Individuality is prized over a party apparatchik image. Stress your out-of-politics hinterland. An accolade or two won in the ‘real world’ is worth years of distinction in the political pond life.

Candidates and the local parties know best. Attune your antennae to the constituency’s mood. The party nationally does not always know best. Use their advice sparingly filtering out the bland and banal statements of the Janet and John obvious written in patronising politics-speak. Only 8% read political leaflets. That’s not the % of voters but the % of party workers delivering them. Pictures always trump words. Invest lavishly in striking flattering pictures of the candidate and the constituency. Insist on a pleasing clean design layout where generous white space highlights images and is more eloquent than a thousand words.

An impression made in the months before the election is more influential that a blizzard of propaganda during the final campaign. Seek to build a reputation on the bread and butter local issues. Convince voters that you are linked umbilically to the constituency: knowledge encyloepaedic, sensitivity bottomless, affection maternal and enthusiasm inspiring. Big up on non-political voters’ worries. Big-down on heavy-duty political mega-issues.

On the campaign trail in 2001, I explained to dramatist David Hare that I did not approach voters because they all recognise me and can chat if they wish. He reported for the Telegraph: 'As we walk round, I tell Flynn that, for my sake, he must put his principles aside and approach an actual voter. The chosen victim admits reluctantly that he’s going to vote Lib Dem. ‘Good for you,’ Flynn says. ‘They’re very good people.’

Hare was baffled. Shouldn’t I have persuaded him to vote for me? My explaining the 65 major points of Labour’s economic policy would only have inflicted earache on the poor man. Instead we had a pleasing social encounter and an intelligent chat. It might deliver a vote, if not immediately, perhaps the election after next. The novelty of telling the plain truth is the best way of nurturing the seed corn. Nobody expects that from a vote-glutton parliamentary candidate

In Alun Michael’s first election, The Guardian reported that ‘the agent thinks he is the candidate and candidate thinks he is the agent’. The roles must be precisely defined and boundaries respected. Tempers swiftly fray when candidates’ neuroses are tested by the inevitable foul-ups. Cultivate saintly tolerance, calm and a benign love for all. Beatification will beckon.

If your seat is an unwinnable nursery one, treasure and gorge on the apprenticeship experience. The impossibility of victory creates worry free bliss. I was once dumped in a distant Tory area with no chance of winning or fully understanding local issues in a five-week campaign. My sole ploy to make some impression was to re-cycle and re-word the editorials in the local papers and submit back to the editors as press releases. It never failed.

Stress need not bother those contesting seat we won in 2010. There are no pushovers but victory this time is a safe bet. Conventional advice is to dodge election Hustings as they elevate weak opponents to potential winners status. Forget that. Accept all invitations and relish meeting and winning the respect of your future constituents.

The thrilling fights are in the marginal that we lost in 2010. Think 1997. Recall the great clutch of new MPs triumphant in seats the party centrally had written off. May 2015 will be the high flood mark for floating voters looking for a safe harbour. The Tories will be sinking deeper into the flotsam of the failures of the Big Society, welfare changes, depressed wages and dozens of privatisation from prisons to passport that have created New Tory chaos.

The metamorphosis from PPC to MP is richly rewarding and fulfilling. Seize the chance!

Inquiry into leaked Sturgeon memo 'might be concluded before election'

A Whitehall leak inquiry into a controversial memo which claimed that Nicola Sturgeon would prefer the Conservatives to form the next government could conclude before the general election, according to Britain’s most senior civil servant.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, who is conducting the inquiry, has written that he is treating it as “a matter of the highest priority” and with “appropriate urgency” after being urged by a senior parliamentarian to resolve the matter before 7 May.

His comments, made in an email seen by the Guardian, are at odds with the views of the secretary of state for Scotland, Alistair Carmichael, who said that “these things happen” when it emerged that the document had come from his department.

The leaked memo caused a major row over the weekend because it was a civil servant’s account of a private meeting between the Scottish first minister and the French ambassador.

According to the report of the memo’s contents in the Telegraph, Sturgeon had said she did not see Ed Miliband as “prime ministerial material” – a view at odds with her public claims that she hoped to lock the Tories out of government.

After the memo was published, Sturgeon complained of “dirty tricks”. She has emphatically denied expressing a preference for David Cameron.

Heywood’s comments are contained in an email sent as a reply to the veteran Labour politician Paul Flynn, a longstanding member of the public administration select committee, which oversees the civil service.

A letter sent by Flynn on Monday asked the government to proceed rapidly with the inquiry into the leak, which he said had been “contrary to our long traditions of civil service impartiality”.

6-Apr-15

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Head of Cabinet Office.

Dear Sir Jeremy,

Civil Service Impartiality

The most serious aspect of the alleged memo concerning Scotland’s First Minister is that it again raises doubts about the impartiality of the Civil Service. As the senior member of the Public Administration Committee (PASC) since 2007 I strongly supported the conclusions of PASC on the conduct of Sir Nicholas Macpherson.

In PASC’s report last month we concluded that there are lessons to be learned for future referendums from the Scottish independence referendum about maintaining Civil Service impartiality. The roles played by civil servants in both Scotland and London were subject to criticism and controversy. The Treasury’s most senior civil servant has confirmed that the department set aside its supposed impartiality to support the Better Together campaign for a No vote. Sir Nicholas Macpherson confirmed in a lecture at the Treasury that his teams had reached a “strong recurring conclusion” that independence would be against the interest of the Scottish people. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury said people were trying to "destroy the fabric of the state.” He had concluded that therefore the normal rules of civil service impartiality did not apply, according to a report in The Independent.

The allegations arising from the publication of the note of the meeting that the Scottish First Minister had with a French official are that another incident of interference by a civil servant in a political matter may have occurred. Two people in the conversation say certain matters were not discussed. A Civil Service memo allegedly says they were. If civil servants routinely intervene in referenda or elections it would be contrary to our long traditions of civil service impartiality. This matter is one of great importance and I believe it requires urgent investigation. It is difficult to understand claims that it cannot be swiftly resolved and a conclusion published before May 7th.

04/07/2015

A not very bright political opponent recently raised my expulsion from the Commons. He is hopelessly confused so below is an update on what happened in September 2012.

Something was certain to blow. It had been seven days of hot churning emotion that led to my expulsion from the Commons for the first time in 25 years.

The previous Thursday International Development Secretary Justine Greening demeaned and insulted the Commons with a saccharine-flavoured quarterly report on Afghanistan.

It was stuffed with the culpable self-deluding optimism that has led to the deaths of hundreds of our soldiers. Greening looked forward to a happy-ever-after corruption and drugs-free Afghanistan.

Green on blue attacks? Sorted. Rampaging corruption? No worry. Mass exit of the troops of our allies? Never heard of it.

We'll have to wait. Britain's exit from the hell of Afghanistan is being delayed so that it can be spun as a victory for politicians. On Sunday I attended the Merchant Navy memorial service on Tower Hill. One in four of them died in WWII - a higher proportion than any other service.

Admiral Lord West was there. No government minister or royalty turned up. Ingrates.

The Afghan nightmare continues untouched by government optimism. By Monday three more British soldiers had been killed.

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond was dragged to the house by a backbencher's urgent question. He patronised and postured. He would never fall for the Taliban's trick of trying to divide the Nato-led forces from Afghan trainee soldiers. Not our Philip. Wokingham MP John Redwood and I urged him to bring our troops home by Christmas.

The Dutch and Canadians have already pulled out of the mission impossible. France and New Zealand are leaving earlier than planned. Isn't Britain an independent nation? Hammond offered this despicable justification for more war without an end in sight.

"Four-hundred and thirty British service personnel have given their lives, and we intend to protect that legacy by ensuring that the UK's national security interests are protected in future by training and mentoring the Afghan national security forces."

His argument is - to justify the waste of 430 lives by foolish politicians - that more lives should be lost. Since the expulsion of al-Qaida there has been no threat to Britain's security from Afghanistan.

The Taliban attack us because we are occupying their country not because they plan terrorism on the streets of Britain. Later on Monday afternoon I began to read the list of the fallen in Afghanistan.

Twenty-five of my early day motions have filled 13 pages of the Common motions paper for the past two weeks.

I previously sought an arrangement for the full list to read in the Commons.

The Speaker courteously stopped me - "Mr Flynn raised with me his view that there should be a formal oral recording, periodically, of lives lost, and asked me to look into the matter.

"I said that I would, and I am doing so, and I think it wise to proceed on the basis of consultation. I intend to speak very soon to the leader of the house, the shadow leader of the house and various others about the matter, and then to revert to the honorable gentleman."

I was delighted with that assurance and ended the reading.

Tuesday dawned with the news that the International Security Assistance Force had fallen for the precise Taliban trick that Hammond said would never fool him. Humiliated, he was dragged back again to the Commons.

I asked: "The role of our brave soldiers is to act as human shields for ministers' reputations. The danger to our soldiers has been prolonged by those on the front bench who have the power to stop it.

"Other countries have removed their soldiers and are not doing what we are doing in arming and training our future enemy.

"Is this not similar to the end of the first world war when it was said that politicians lied and soldiers died and the reality was, as it is now, that our brave soldier lions were being led by ministerial donkeys?"

The Speaker asked me to make clear if I was saying that a minister was lying. There was only one possible answer.

My head was full of the deceptions of vain ministers since 2006, the avoidable 430 deaths and 2,000 soldiers who return home broken in mind and body.

"Yes, ministers had lied," I said. Exclusion was inevitable and a price worth paying. It struck a chord with thousands of people. It resonated for many months in many parts of the world.

Now that the war is over the pundits are falling over themselves to denounce its futility.

EDM 813 2015

That this House records its sorrow at the deaths of 453 British soldiers in Afghanistan and notes the post-conflict judgements by Brigadier Ed Butler that the UK was under-prepared and under-resourced, by General Sir Peter Wall that the calculus was wrong, by Major General Andrew Mackay that the war was a series of shifting plans, unobtainable objectives, propaganda and spin, by former ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles that the UK operation was a massive act of collective self-deception by military and politicians unable to admit how badly it was going, and by General Lord Dannatt that the UK knew it was heading for two considerable size operations and really only had the organisation and manpower for one; and calls for an early inquiry into the conduct of the war in order to avoid future blunders.

What a shame they could bear to tell the truth earlier when many lives could have been saved.

04/06/2015

The most serious aspect of the alleged memo concerning Scotland’s First Minister is that it again raises doubts about the impartiality of the Civil Service. As the senior member of the Public Administration Committee (PASC) since 2007 I strongly supported the conclusions of PASC on the conduct of Sir Nicholas Macpherson.

In PASC’s report last month we concluded that there are lessons to be learned for future referendums from the Scottish independence referendum about maintaining Civil Service impartiality. The roles played by civil servants in both Scotland and London were subject to criticism and controversy. The Treasury’s most senior civil servant has confirmed that the department set aside its supposed impartiality to support the Better Together campaign for a No vote. Sir Nicholas Macpherson confirmed in a lecture at the Treasury that his teams had reached a “strong recurring conclusion” that independence would be against the interest of the Scottish people. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury said people were trying to "destroy the fabric of the state.” He had concluded that therefore the normal rules of civil service impartiality did not apply, according to a report in The Independent.

The allegations arising from the publication of the note of the meeting that the Scottish First Minister had with a French official are that another incident of interference by a civil servant in a political matter may have occurred. Two people in the conversation say certain matters were not discussed. A Civil Service memo allegedly says they were. If civil servants routinely intervene in referenda or elections it would be contrary to our long traditions of civil service impartiality. This matter is one of great importance and I believe it requires urgent investigation. It is difficult to understand claims that it cannot be swiftly resolved and a conclusion published before May 7th.

04/04/2015

There is persuasive evidence that a Civil Servant may have again interfered politically in breach of Civil Service rules. Two people in an alleged conversation say it did not happen. A civil service memo allegedly says it did.

Already the Public Administration Committee has condemed interference in Scottish politics by a senior civil servant. Has it happened again? As a senior member of PASC since 2007 I am today writing to Sir Jeremy Heywood demanding a swift inquiry. Civil Servant interference in referenda or elections is an affront to our democratic traditions.

In a report last month the Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) says that there are lessons to be learned for future referendums from the Scottish independence referendum about maintaining civil service impartiality. The roles played by civil servants in both Scotland and London were subject to criticism and controversy. PASC called for changes to the Civil Service code.

The Treasury’s most senior civil servant has confirmed that the department set aside its supposed impartiality to support the Better Together campaign for a No vote.

Sir Nicholas Macpherson confirmed in a lecture at the Treasury that his teams had reached a “strong recurring conclusion” that independence would be against the interest of the Scottish people. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury said people were trying to "destroy the fabric of the state” He had concluded that therefore the normal rules of civil service impartiality did not apply, according to a report in The Independent

In a report published in March 2015 by PASC, the committee criticised Macpherson’s actions. It stated that he should not have published his views in the run up to the referendum and doing so “compromised the perceived impartiality” of one of the UK’s most senior civil servants.

The report recommended that the decision to publish such comments “should not recur”, and that the Civil Service Code should be revised.

04/03/2015

Thank you for your reply and for correcting my misunderstanding of the entries in the Register of Members' Interests.

We have now posted the following statement on the I-Player page where this particular edition of The Big Questions is accessed.

“Note: At about 7mins 10 seconds into this programme, during the live debate about "Should MPs work full-time for their salaries?", an opinion is expressed by an audience member concerning the Labour Party and Paul Flynn MP’s position concerning the issue of MP’s having second jobs. The audience member is Paul Halliday the Liberal Democrat prospective parliamentary candidate for Newport East. By way of response to those comments, Paul Flynn MP has asked us to point out that he donates all income from his books to charity, a practice he has made public regularly and a practice he advocates other MPs should adopt in relation to any additional income they receive."

I trust this will clear up any misunderstanding of your position and I hope you will accept my fullest apologies for any distress this may have caused you.

04/01/2015

I’ve never met Paul Halliday. I hope I never will. He does not sound very interesting company. In the world of mature politics there is a dispute on whether MPs should have second jobs. The main objections are that excessive time spent on jobs unrelated to parliamentary duties will reduce time that MPs can devote to MPs’ duties and secondly serving a second master may divert their loyalties away from duties to constituency, country and party.

Mr Halliday is a prospective parliamentary candidate in a neighbouring constituency. He has worked himself up into a lather of excitement because I write books. It has proved expensive for him. It could get worse.

All my seven books have been written in Augusts during parliamentary recesses. They have been my annual holidays when rhythm of work adapts to a different regime of writing 2,000 words a day. Each takes a fortnight to write. One of them is the most borrowed book in the House of Commons library. Like all my other books they are devoted to parliamentary work and packed with humour and, I hope, sage advice. In addition I am a prolific writer of articles that are printed widely. All are devoted to the only subject on which I have deep knowledge – parliament. Newspapers have serialized nearly all the books, which brings in money. Rather boringly my entire working life and most of my leisure life is devoted to the wonderful job I have as MP for Newport West. Speaking, questioning, constituency work and writing are all elements that make up the whole of an MPs working life.

Mr Halliday attacked me in a television programme. I sought advice on whether to pursue Mr Halliday for his remarks. I was told by a barrister that they were defamatory and I was advised to sue for substantial damages. Seeking his silence and not his humiliation, I sought token damages and generously settled for a very small amount and payment of some of my costs. Mr Halliday persists in some of his baseless charges. Does he really understand the nature of legal costs and the need to honour a settlement that has been made? Contrary to the terms of the settlement, Paul Halliday is still exited and today wrote (and I am aware that it’s the 1st of April):

“The point, which stands, is that an MP either has time to do their Job or Not. It is political point scoring to say no second Jobs, when taking time to write books, which can take much more time than some second jobs.We have a system that allows the public to decide whether someone is spending the time they should on their constituents”.

In the years since 1972 when was I first elected as a representative politician in Newport, I have never been accused of neglecting my duties. By all measures, as a councillor and MP, I have been hyper-active, making more speeches, asking more questions and serving on more committees than 95% of MPs. I understand that Mr Halliday claims to be a man of religion.What will convince him that he must not bear false witness against his neighbour?

Below are some of my previous comments that set out my position with clarity.

From How to be an MP 2010

How to squirrel

Odd sums of money arrive in the post. Cheques from media inter- views, for writing or from market research companies are not really earned. They are usually paid for doing the job for which MPs are already paid.

If they lie heavily on the conscience, they can be diverted into a fund for excess income. Set up a proper charitable trust with defined aims and trustees, into which the full sums can be deposited. A simpler course is to pay tax on the cash, then deposit it in a separate charitable account with independent signatories.

Either way the sums quickly accumulate into substantial amounts for worthwhile giving. They help to avoid dependence on outside money and ensure that work priorities are not distorted by financial temptations. Always insist that any charitable giving is anonymous. It absolves the giver of the insulting charge of trying to buy votes and it reduces the calls on the fund from unworthy causes.

From Radio Five Live 23rd February 2015.

Jack Straw has brought all of politics into disrepute again and so has Malcolm Rifkind. They have both behaved very foolishly. We should have had root and branch reform of Parliament. In 1994 I said that some MPs had their snouts so deeply in the trough that all you could see of them was the soles of their Gucci boots. And here, all these years later, it hasn’t changed.

There are Ten Commandments for MPs. Number five says ‘never covet a second income, honours, or a retirement job.’ Yet all this is still going on. We should have had huge reforms in Parliament after the great screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal. We haven’t done it - we’ve gone backwards. We’ve got more honours. We haven’t reformed lobbying. We haven’t reformed the retirement process from the place. It’s got worse, not better.

Yes, I write books. All the money and the serial rights go to charities. I take the view that the public has sent me here, they give me a full-time wage and they expect a full-time job. That’s simple to understand. If MPs have to take some time off to do another job, they should deduct any income that they get during that time from their Parliamentary salary.

May 23, 2015

My interest in the survival of steel jobs and the threat to the pensions is not just as a local neighbouring MP to Jessica Morden.

Picture South Wales Argus

I was working there before the first iron or steel was made in 1962. Before that I worked for 5 years in a Cardiff steelworks. A total of 30 years work and a steel union branch secretary for most of that time.. The decline in jobs at Llanwern has been tragic in spite of the great sacrifices and restraint of the workforce over many years. I will do all I can to advance their pension case in a secondary role to Jessica Morden

A strong display of unity would be very helpful at this time but I believe the matter can only be settled across the negotiating table with a full understanding of Tata's position. If they are being unreasonable and refusing to negotiate that' puts the union in a very difficult position.

As always in these situations hotheads from outside the industry will be encouraging militancy. They are usually opportunists pursing their own agendas and jumping on all passing bandwagons - here today : where tomorrow?

My contacts with the union representative have been informative. They are impressive in the long tradition on union leaders at Llanwern.

They say, “Tata's response has been to refuse to come back around the table to try to discuss and resolve the issue. They tell me how important the Pension Scheme (BSPS) is to each and every member. If the scheme stays open, there is still the possibility for younger workers to join the BSPS in the future when the funding recovers. But if Tata close the scheme that’s it– nobody else would ever be able to join and everybody in the scheme would become deferred pensioners unable to access their full pension until aged 65.

Closing the pension scheme is unjustified and it is also unnecessary: pension deficits and surpluses go up and down but fundamentally the BSPS is a well-funded and sustainable scheme.”

I must declare an interest. I am a beneficiary of the scheme. It’s not a major part of my income but it is valued because it was hard-earned in 30 years of the rigors of shiftwork. I have great affection for that period of my life and warm regard for my companions who shared those shifts with me. I will do all I can to assist Jessica and the Unions to achieve a fair settlement.

May 21, 2015

AS an aide memoir to myself I have recalled a few stray impressions of an interesting election campaign in Newport West. It was like no other of the seven I have fought. Some of it will be later used in an extended edition of my published auto-biography.

FREAKISH SWING

Thanks for another wonderful result in Newport West. On a bad night for the Labour Party the 'swing' in my constituency vote was precisely 0.0%.

That looks like 'no change'. But under the surface there was a great churning of votes-mainly from LibDems and to UKIP plus minor movements of votes to Plaid and Green.

No one will ever know what happened. My belief after talking to many constituents is that LibDems vote came to Labour and we lost votes to UKIP/Green/Plaid. The latter three parties failed to make the advances in Newport West that were expected from their vast unprecedented national publicity.

The LibDems took the rap for the coalition Government and were humiliated into lost deposit area for the first time for decades. The ridiculous antics of their Drama Queen candidate in Newport East accelerated their decline. A student stunt of a Hustings to which no one with a chance of being elected was invited was the final stupidity. 12 students turned up. One person claimed he had sent out invitations. Four candidates for Labour and Conservatives said they never received them. This was student politics at its juvenile futile worst.

I was not well disposed to the LibDem candidate from Newport East as he had, without provocation, called me a hypocrite on National TV. I threatened to sue and in last few days I have had a cheque from him for £600 from my legal costs and he has paid damages of £500 to me directed to a splendid local charity that cares for Afghan veterans. His legal expenses are likely to be around an additional £2,000. That should have taught him a lesson. He boasted in one of the Hustings with a grin on his face that my legal action had cost me money. He is wrong. But why anyone would feel pleased in adding expense to a defamatory insult is beyond me. Why should I pay for the experience of being unjustly defamed before the nation? Happily I will not be paying a penny.

He later descended from apologist for his TV untruths to attention seeking dog’s dinner when a politically astute dog bit his finger. The self-publicist’s immediate reaction was to photograph the bleeding digit and send the picture to the press. He was emphatically mocked by dog loving readers of the Argus for this gruesome gesture.

The West's LibDem failed to attend any public Hustings. Deservedly he fell from second in the 2010 poll in the East to a lost deposit fifth position in the West. Having worked with LibDems in the city for since 1972, their woeful present state gives me no pleasure.

INCUMBENCY RULES

The Labour campaign team was superb-the best ever in my recollections that go back to the 60s. Everything we tried worked. Leaflets were colourful, stylish and persuasive. All were delivered on time including the personally addressed postal vote ones and the targeted polling day reminders. Never before have our tireless workers been better organised and intelligently led. The atmosphere throughout was calm and confident. I did not interfere with the organising tasks and the campaign team allowed me to do my political work in peace. Thanks everyone.

The incumbency factor was an advantage and occasionally a disadvantage. The work my staff has done over 28 years was remembered and appreciated. My opponents did use word of mouth ‘ageism’ arguments but few responded.

Continuing with me as a candidate was a risk. The local party took 'past form' into account and believed that a six times winner could be a seventh time victor. I am very grateful to the party and the people of Newport for their continued support. .

What's are the Newport election's lessons for the future?

The Labour Party remains the strongest party in Wales. We must avoid the errors of Labour in Scotland and strengthen our positive Welsh, constituencies, and ward brand images. We must have a compelling vision for a culturally and economically rich future. There is rock solid loyalty to us from many individuals and families. We need to foster the new generation. Newport West Labour has a splendid group of young members who will create their own initiatives. A generation that was mainly politically inert is showing signs of anger at their neglect by a political system that undervalues them and favours the elderly.

This election in Newport was marked by more support from young people who were active at all levels of campaigning. The idealism of our party must be re-fashioned to tackle the bewildering threats of a divided, plundered planet motivated by selfishness and greed.

Newport Conservatives put in their usual competent performance. I suspect their candidate may have been selected as a serial loser to soak up some electoral punishment. He lost badly in two previous elections coming third in the Police Commissioner Election. More serious candidates may emerge when they believe they have a better chance of winning. It’s a shame if he was pushed forward to fail. He produced a plan, which was impractical in every respect with grandiose schemes outside of the powers of an MP and the exclusive responsibilities of the Welsh Government and Newport Council.

He attended some of the Hustings and performed well. Occasionally he was out of his depth. His leaflets were lavish and expensively produced but relied excessively on a surfeit of pictures of the non-photogenic candidate. It’s fine if you are Brad Pitt to put nine pictures of yourself on a leaflet. Not when you look like all the rest of us. Someone should have told him that no picture is often better than a bad picture. One group photo of his four man canvassing team provoked the comment ‘Are they making a new series of the 'Last of the Summer Wine' in Malpas?

He confessed that one of life's achievements was winning a fancy dress competition dressed as a fire extinguisher. Candidates' credibility is eroded by repeated failures. He has now had three.

Pippa Bartolotti enjoyed vast exposure and publicity on TV as leader of the Green Party party in Wales. It did not help much. The Greens support has moved in three General Elections from 1.5%, to 1.1% to 3.2%. She is an (over) dramatic speaker who impresses until she gets into the La La Land of her party’s idea on a citizen's wage and uncontrolled immigration. That's NO controls on immigration at all and a magnetic citizens' wage for the 100s' of millions of the world's poorest. The Citizens' wage of £80 a week she confirmed on TV would be paid to the rich and the poor, the employed and the unemployed and those seeking work and those NOT seeking work. The real world is not ready yet for Utopia. Plaid's unprecedented UK wide exposure was of small help and did not significantly affect the result. Their candidate was amiable and performed adequately.

The UKIP candidates did not show up for any of the Hustings. He gained from voting appeal of Farage as man of the people and dis-illusionment with the political system. Many of the Tories who planned to vote UKIP returned to their party in the final days because of fears of an invasion by marauding wild Scots out to steal their diamonds and their daughters. Their support is not deeply rooted.

The LibDems were disgraceful non-combatants. Their aims were tired and impossibilist. Promising to get rid of the Severn Bridges toll is the desperate stale idea from an intellectually bankrupt party that has lost the will to survive. Because of the absence of the local candidate we had to endure the motor mouth ramblings of the East candidate. It’s sad that the LibDems had abandoned any hope of winning by choosing such a candidate and denying him the funding provided in 2010. He is a preposterous comic-book character combination of Walter Mitty and Elmer Gantry. His self image proclaimed repeatedly is of the Newport City's Redeemer. He believes that people want him to lead them out of the barren wasteland of past failures created by ordinary mortals. It's a mystery why anyone would chose to be led by someone with an uncertain grasp of the truth and reality. He repeatedly piled untruth on untruth. In the early hours of election morning he told the Argus at 1.38 am at the count that he was excited ' We have set ourselves certain targets and we have more than achieved all of them." . That includes, we presume, losing two thirds of his vote and dropping from 2nd to 4th position. Newport Liberal Parties can do better and should. His early morning rant was crude spin taken to manic lengths. The results later cruelly mocked his impossible dreams. A dignified response would have been a prolonged period of silence. No chance, he is still babbling on and seeking new bandwagons to leap on. Take heart. Newport is rumbling him.

ARGUS BONUS

One unexpected bonus in the campaign was the South Wales Argus reporting. It was pioneering. At first I was irritated because they gave prominence to a complaint by my Tory opponent about a perfectly fair comment of mine on immigration. I was tempted to hit back by attacking some of the false claims in his election leaflets. I decided not to because he was the one who was hungry for the publicity that I had enjoyed as an incumbent over many years. The Tory’s complaint was counter-productive because he placed himself on the minority side of Newport public opinion on this hot topic.

BBC Wales gave a full prominent report on my claim of defamation. The Argus reported it late and underplayed it as a minor spat. But their reporting improved.

Useful Malpas Court School Initiative with mock election

There have never before been full detailed reports of the Newport Hustings. I have attended all of them to which I have been invited since 1987. The Argus’ young journalists provided this time full eminently readable and entertaining accounts of the most significant debates. There were addition video clips and tweets that showed the live action and sharp exchanges. This and the tweeter Hustings were pioneering.

The Tweeter experiment consisted of a series of questions posed by the paper. All candidates were invited to reply with a tweet. There was a lively exchange with most candidates taking part. There are refinements necessary in future. Some strict ground rules should be agreed. Some of the replies were not tweets confined to 140 characters. They were rambling replies that spread over three or four tweets. One candidate was remarkably fluent and concise on tweeter. This was a contrast to his stumbling hesitant persona at the live Hustings. Who was writing the replies? Not the candidate, I believe, but someone in the party HQ.

The Argus also reported what appears to have been a stunt Hustings set up to give a platform to one viewpoint that was doomed to flounder deep in lost deposit territory. They accurately reported the stunts failure and improbable claims.

The Argus gave a wider unique reach to the local arguments that were otherwise drowned out by the massive National TV coverage. The full richness of the constituency debates was available to the Argus audience in new vivid accessible ways. Their coverage deserves recognition and imitation.

The Newport East result was a satisfying swing to Labour's Jessica Morden , a big UKIP vote and one the biggest swings against the LibDems in the UK. The national swing against them was about 15%. In Newport East it was 25.8% and in Newport West 12.7%

The word has become so toxic that they hide behind euphemisms such as ‘public policy advisers’. We all know what that means and the fear of stigmatization is understood and accepted. Less defensible are those who seek respect as objective observers and describe themselves as ‘Think Tanks’ when they are hired guns for usually bad causes.

Fairly clear that the point I was making is whether the Institute of Economic Affairs is a think tank or paid lobbying firm. There were immediate squeals of irrational abuse from the IEA and other lobbyists. Someone who is described as IEA’s Head of Public Policy tweeted

“Ryan Bourne ‏‪@MrRBourne Hypocrite ‪@paulflynnmp voted at every stage in favour of Licensing Act - now accuses ‪@iealondon of being lobbyists for defending it.”

No sign of rational thought there. I made no judgment on the success or otherwise on the reforms that I long supported. Ryan Bourne evades the serious issue of IEA’s status and indulges in a probably libellous ad hominem attack. He invents a non-issue and then attacks the absurdity of his own creation, other IEA groupies followed the feeding frenzy into irrelevance. Persistent requests by me made again today and in the past remain unanswered.

According to its website, the IEA does “not place a list of our donors in the public domain. It is a matter for individual donors whether they wish their donation to be public or private — we leave that entirely to their discretion.” But in 2014 The Guardian disclosed that the IEA took substantial sums of cash from large tobacco firms, and – coincidentally – published reports strongly defending the tobacco industry against tighter regulation.

May 16, 2015

I have written to David Cameron asking him to convene a meeting of party leaders to discuss alternatives to the demeaning weekly spectacle of Prime Minister's Questions. The PM has expressed his own criticism. Now would be the ideal time to switch to a less confrontational format.

The following article will be published in Monday's House Magazine.

Can a beloved national institution be reformed? Should a weekly national embarrassment continue? The arguments rage.

The Mother of all Parliaments is a degraded harlot doomed to endure future scandals. Attempts at reforms have been superficial. A great fresh injection of the new blood of 180 plus MPs should invigorate and inspire a determination to end the weekly self-humiliation.

PMQs of the 4th of March were described as the ‘worst ever’. The evidence is convincing. Very few of David Cameron’s answers to Ed Miliband’s questions were connected in any way to the replies.

In all other parliamentary oral questions, relevance rules. I asked at Welsh Questions about the Severn Tidal lagoons earlier that day. If the Welsh Minister’s answer had told me the price of cabbage, he would have been declared out of order. Why not the PM?

There are other degradations. Robust badinage is acceptable. Crude insults are not. Members, unable to answer back, have been described as ‘a muttering idiot,’ ‘a dinosaur,’ ‘a waste of space’ and the tediously repeated ‘weak’. This is not grown-up politics.

The hypnotically repeated mantras are mind numbing and self-defeating. They have been rumbled. Michael Cockerell’s BBC ‘Inside the Commons’ series juxtaposed several lobotomized Tory MPs who had been drilled by the whips to parrot ‘long-term economic plan’ in their PMQs. Mentioning ‘hard-working families’ brings joy to the whips, but fosters neuralgic irritation in others.

Defenders of the status quo rejoice in the worldwide popularity of the spectacle. It’s diverting, amusing show business – but ultimately demeaning. The public’s derision mounts. They fairly ask if these same bellowing buffoons can be trusted to take decisions on sending troops to war or savaging benefits.

There have been previous attempts at reform. John Major praised the collaboration he had from Neil Kinnock in reshaping the, then twice weekly, row into a civilized exchange of views. It was short lived. I tried to help by sending 10 Downing Street a copy of the number one question I was to ask in the hope of a constructive reply. The answer John Major gave me was described in a Times Editorial as ‘a typical civil service briefing with a party political sting in the tail.’ Scalded, I never again wasted a chance to surprise a prime minister.

Michael Cockerell’s programmes were beneficial to our reputation in revealing, in an amusing, attractive format, the best of the House. Intelligent, hard-working MPs were shown toiling for the benefit of their constituents. The public judge us by their disgust at the screaming nightmare of the expenses scandal and the laughable bedlam of PMQs. PMQs is probably un-reformable in its present state because of the advantages of direct confrontation to prime ministers. If we are to regain public trust a new format is needed.

It should retain the robust gladiatorial challenge to power while maintaining a respectful decorum. It could retain the Opposition's advantage of choosing the subject while allowing the Prime Minister to have the last word. Debating value would be enriched if questioners were allowed supplementaries.

The adversarial, mass bear pit of the Commons could be replaced by the less confrontational Westminster Hall. Questions could be put by opposition leaders plus thirty randomly selected MPs who would be allowed supplementaries. Passion, heat and posturing could be reduced by cool, intelligent, civilized exchanges.

A surprising number of MPs no longer attend PMQs. The public’s disdain is visceral and growing. Parliament is better than PMQs. We should prove it.

May 13, 2015

The National

THE veteran Labour MP who raised questions about the leaked document falsely claiming that suggesting Nicola Sturgeon had told French diplomats she would prefer the Tories to form the next government, is to raise the subject again when the House of Commons resumes.

Paul Flynn, who represents the Welsh constituency of Newport West, told The National it was “extraordinary” that an inquiry into the leak – which was expected to be completed before last Thursday’s General Election – should still be continuing.

It is one of the thorniest subjects David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, will have to deal with as he settles into his new job.

Details of the memo were published in a London newspaper early last month and purported to give a civil servant’s account of a meeting the First Minister had with the French ambassador.

Sturgeon said the contents were “100 per cent untrue”. The French diplomat confirmed that no such remark had been made.

Flynn is a long-standing member of the public administration select committee, which oversees the civil service.

Last month he urged the government to proceed rapidly with an inquiry into the leak, which he said had been “contrary to our long traditions of civil service impartiality”.

“This matter is one of great importance and I believe it requires urgent investigation. It is difficult to understand claims that it cannot be swiftly resolved and a conclusion published before 7 May,” Flynn wrote.

Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood replied: “I have instigated a Cabinet Office-led inquiry to establish how extracts from this document may have got into the public domain. I consider this a matter of the highest priority and am treating it with the appropriate urgency.

“Until that inquiry is complete, I will not be making any further comment on the document or the inquiry.”

Flynn retorted: “‘The highest priority’ and ‘appropriate urgency’ sound less like the speed of an arthritic sloth by which other government inquiries traditionally move.

“It is crucial for the reputation of the civil service that this issue should not be allowed to influence public opinion during the election on the basis of a possible untruth. An investigation involving very few people could be swiftly concluded.”

However, when contacted by The National yesterday, a Scotland Office spokesman said the inquiry was “still ongoing”.

Flynn told The National: “We can’t table parliamentary questions for about another week, but I will raise it at the first opportunity, whether that’s at the first question time or as an early day motion.

“It’s extraordinary that such a simple inquiry should take so long. The last I heard the leak had been narrowed down to one individual.

“The last thing we want is for it to become bogged down in procedure – we all know the years it took for the Bloody Sunday inquiry to eventually issue a report.

“I think there’s some chicanery here – it’s implausible that it is still ongoing.”

At the time of the leak Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael, who was Scottish Secretary, denied that it was embarrassing for his department, and said: “This is the middle of an election campaign, these things happen.”

In an interview shortly after the memo came into the public domain, Prime Minister David Cameron appeared to point the finger of blame at his Liberal Democrat coalition colleagues.

When asked if he suspected the LibDems, he replied: “I have heard very clearly David Mundell [the Tory Scotland Office minister] saying it wasn’t him, so one does wonder.”

One of Carmichael’s advisers was expected to be questioned by Cabinet Office officials.

According to the report of the memo’s contents, Sturgeon had said she did not see Ed Miliband as “prime ministerial material”.

After it was published, she complained of “dirty tricks” and emphatically denied expressing a preference for Cameron.